Personally, I think that is a reasonable limit. However, DFINITY defined the target limit at 10% when they decided canister controlled neurons would be allowed. I was really surprised when it was set that high. Perhaps you should make this proposal in that thread and the community can revisit the discussion about it. @bjoernek led the discussion the first time around.
2 Likes
Ok as promised here is a summary of what my main issues are with WTN and ways in which I think it could be improved.
What is the issue?
The WaterNeuron (WTN) concept was created to minimize the potential harm caused by voters who only participate to farm rewards.
The idea is that passive voters — people who don’t want to engage — can still earn rewards without having to actively vote, and without skewing results through uninformed choices.
That’s great in theory.
Sadly the thing that isn’t really illustrated is what happens to the voting power. Individually, it may not seem like much… but aggregated across hundreds and thousands of small holders, the impact becomes enormous.
This isn’t a new concern. In fact, the same argument keeps coming up:
“The whole concept of WaterNeuron is buying votes and centralizing decision making.”
These are not just my words. They’ve been typed by @Mpeiz, @Lorimer, @WebTreeSoftwareSolut, and others.
Could it happen?
Take a look at the chart @Mico shared — it shows that if developers and whales (of which it is not transparent how many individuals there are, so it is hard to say how probable that is) voted together, they would control 62.4% of the vote.
That’s a huge concern that we should ALL agree is a problem.
Where is the proof?
Whether or not someone literally controls 51% of the WTN isn’t the issue.
The point is that the risk EXISTS, and if it that happens down the line, it could have catastrophic implications for the NNS.
We can’t just hope for the best. Something needs to be done.
I know there have been arguments that all the WTN holders have locked neurons, but they can be sold and nobody would be any the wiser.
How can we fix it?
I am sure this isnt the only solution, but it seems the most obvious.
Have the WTN neuron vote proportionally to the WTN holder’s wishes, not just using the majority as one single vote. That would solve many of the issues that people have with WTN. You can then multiple each WTN holders wishes by the additional voting power accumulated for the staked liquid ICP.
Then you avoid the risk of a 51% majority taking all 100% of the voting power.
I know other solutions have also been suggested, but it is time to stop pretending there isn’t a flaw in the WTN concept, but instead work together to find a solution that means we do not need to trust people.
That is the whole point of the IC right?
2 Likes
In addition to the ethical dilemnas i already presented in this thread i want to emphasize that
The 51% majority in WTN already takes 100% of the voting power.
It doesnt matter if they are aligned intentionally to do so. The result is the same.
So you have absolutely no proof of your husbands claims that a secret cabal owns 51% of the wtn vote?
He can now kindly stop accusing them and maybe work towards a solution that isn’t him trying to kill the project.
Adam and gold dao account for just over 11% of that whale allocation in the graph. I’m sure you knew this already so I wonder why you made it seem like all the whales are unknown and can collude.
Your response also doesn’t show the fact that the only way to gather 51% is through voter following. As seen with Adam trying to 51% attack the dao.
No one has said the process couldn’t be improved but it’s definitely hard to focus on solutions while your husband is attacking the dao, throwing around accusations to spread fear, and slandering other investors because he doesn’t like them. If he were genuine in finding a solution why not join the wtn telegram and discus with the community to hear the data and facts so we can all work for a better future.
2 Likes
In my observation, most people in the WaterNeuron community who are actively participating in governance conversations, including the dev team, are in agreement with you on this idea. I happen to be one of the only people who disagrees.
Triggering the entire voting power of both the 6mo and 8yr neurons based on the consensus reached on each proposal has a self limiting feature that I think is important to recognize. I don’t want a double digit percentage of voting power in the NNS to be created by people who are only interested in staking rewards, even if the vote is triggered by a consensus of credible and reliable WTN neuron owners.
I would like to see the vast majority of NNS voting power being cast by people who own their voting power and have long term skin in the game, which is the original design of the NNS and tokenomics. It’s good for people to be uncomfortable when the voting power triggered by any one neuron is too large. We need people to always challenge large neuron owners and hold them to a high standard. I think splitting the WaterNeuron voting power will take us in the wrong direction and lead to even more liquid staking.
I recognize that I will probably lose this argument since so many people are already aligned with the split voting power distribution idea. The same thing happened when it came to canister controlled neurons. I was adamantly against it for the longest time, but once it became apparent that DFINITY would implement it specifically so WaterNeuron could launch, the only logical thing to do was to start working on how to participate in a responsible way. At the end of the day, it will all work out. However, from my point of view right now, this would be another mistake for WaterNeuron to split the vote through brute force (split/merge) or through a new NNS method created by DFINITY. I hope the community give this more thought before it gets implemented.
This is how every single neuron in the NNS works. It’s not new or unique to WaterNeuron.
What is that if you dont mind me asking?
I should have just used the same terminology that @thyassa used. Most people seem aligned with the idea of having the WTN neuron vote proportionally to the WTN holders wishes. That is what I was trying to say.
It’s not a question of if, but rather when. It probably won’t happen on your time scale if you think it should be implemented now. WaterNeuron still triggers less than 1% TVP in the NNS, which is not enough to warrant such drastic changes.
Tell you what @wpb
If youll publicly state that WTN is a pyramid scheme designed to dilute non participants and make retail investors more poor than they already are, until eventually theyre paying YOU to vote with their money.
I wont complain about the decentralization of the daos votes.
1 Like
No, it’s not, and so I have no reason to make those kinds of statements.
Once again @WebTreeSoftwareSolut …
2 Likes
Ok explain how anything i said is not true. Thats why my post is still there, its straight facts.
This isnt just directed at @wpb if you are a member of WTN dao you are complicit in this predatory behavior and its shameful.
Maybe you didnt realize what it was, but now you have the facts.
You’re speculating again.
Did you read the white paper of wtn or are you just going off the ideology that Adam and Donna put forth?
All members of WTN dao are complicit in this pyramid scheme.
Im not playing favorites here
Feel free to refute any of the claims i made, you cant.
If you want to participate in an equally reprehensible project ive started NACHOS in the watercooler.
Then you really haven’t taken the time to learn about liquid staking and understand how wtn approaches these topics
You guys just got caught with your pants around your ankles
1 Like
Its not that complicated buddy.
Really? I’d love to see your proof still.
Yah does the number 18 mean anything to you wenzel?
Maybe @1eo or @EnzoPlayer0ne want to weigh in on these brilliant tokenomics.
Why is everyone so cryptic.
Wouldn’t all of this be so much easier if everyone presented their information?
https://forum.dfinity.org/t/nachos-my-100-original-idea
It requires you read thoughtfully.
So to put it simply, you have no proof whatsoever and yet you support your husband in attacking a project purely based on “What if?” scenarios.